Why should I have to go through such exhausting mental gymnastics to realize what is evident?

It's not mental gymnastics, it's a matter of law.  To enact, revise or revoke a law requires a PROCESS and one that cannot be done willy-nilly, haphazardly, etc.  Law is very precise and must be.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean anything.  First, are you trained to understand it?  Second, do you have the patience/personality to WANT to understand it?  I would say 'no' to both for you.  (and I don't mean that as a criticism).  Many people might have the WANT, but not the training to read legal docuмents and to read the legal interpretation of what they mean.  I'm not a lawyer but i've had some legal-related jobs.  I'm not an expert at all, but my point is, if you're not used to reading legal docuмents, it will seem like a different language (which it is). 

If you want to learn legal stuff, and become self-taught, then go for it.  But describing legal details as "mental gymnastics" is wrong.  I mean, if I try to read the Church Fathers interpretation of Scripture, where they talk about Greek and Hebrew meanings and tranlsations, wouldn't it be wrong, impatient, and stupid for me to say "well, they're just being too detailed and full of themselves when they talk about this or that meaning, or singular vs plural.  Just give us a translation and be done with it."  That would be a very rash and impatient response.  THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE MATTERS, especially in law!

----

The Novus Ordo Mass is an invalid rite, not because it did not come from the "Infallible Magisterium" or because the wording "all vs. many" or the priest facing the people, nor the altar girls or the immodest women at the rail; but for the simple reason that the ONLY person on earth with the power of introducing and approving new rites for the Church, this is, the Sovereign Pontiff, was an illegitimate impostor.

He was a false Pope.

I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.

Ok, so you're saying Paul VI was a false pope because V2 contradicts Tradition, right?  But WHEN did he become a false pope?  Before or after the council?
Your statement above indicates that you say he was an imposter BECAUSE OF the council, which means he was validly elected and a valid pope AT THE START OF the council?  Yes?

The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.

Cantarella,

If you read the address given by Pope Paul VI when he announced the Novus Ordo you will see that he dates the liturgical development to the  Pian Commission which began in 1948 under secretary Annibale Bugnini. Paul VI specifically says that the Novus Ordo has its roots in the 1955 changes to Holy Week. What also may be of interest to you to learn is that Bugnini in his book published in 1990, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948 to 1976, says that the first principles of liturgical reform were adopted by the Pian Commission from the very beginning, never changed, and were consistently applied throughout his tenure.
 
Any traditional Catholic association using any Roman Missal published after 1955 is using a Bugnini transitional Missal.  The current common usage of the 1962 Indult Missal that is in common usage, is in fact a Bugnini transitional Missal.  When Bugnini was asked in 1962 (the mid-point of his liturgical leadership) if that version of the Missal was his last, he replied:
 

“Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars.  The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again.”
The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid

There were several versions of transitional Missals between 1962 and the publication of the Novus Ordo, all of which were approved by Paul VI before the final Novus Ordo. The 1962 Missal had all the "gross accretions, the evident distortions" of the immemorial "received and approved" Roman rite of Mass removed by Bugnini, and this continued right up to 1969 with hardly a month passing by without some new corruption being imposed. In fact, except for the three additional canons, there was very little "new" about the Novus Ordo in 1969 that had not already been implemented.
 
Not only is it a dogma that the "received and approved" rites may not be changed by "any pastor of the churches whomsoever," it is also required from the Council of Florence that every pastor offer the Mass according to the "custom" of his rite. The acceptance of the "received and approved" rite was incorporated into the Tridentine Profession of Faith.  It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
 
Since you hold the pope as your rule of faith and believe that liturgical worship is a matter of mere Church discipline, then you have no doctrinal or moral ground to reject his form of worship. I hold dogma as the rule of faith and keep to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church. I formally reject the notion that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Church are matters of mere discipline but are necessary attributes of the faith by which it can be known and communicated to others. I also hold to the Catholic moral principle that no human authority has the power to impose anything injurious to the faith, and that every Catholic is morally required to reject anything that is injurious to the faith. Furthermore, I have submitted this Rome as is my right as a baptized Catholic for a formal definitive Magisterial judgment which I am morally bound to do.

None of this requires getting rid of the pope which leads only to greater error, formal heresy, and ultimately despair.
 
Drew

The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.

Quo Primum was made a law AFTER the council of Trent.  The only rites and ceremonies allowed AFTER Quo Primum are 1) those rites 200+ years old as of 1570ish, 2) Tridentine rite.  That's it.

Since the law hasn't changed, then as of today, the only 2 categories of masses/rites are the 2 above.  Paul VI can create a new rite all he wants, but it is illegal to use it.

We were blessed to be able to attend his conferences whenever possible. We listened to this yesterday. There is another video on Papal Infallibility which is highly recommended and covers what we have been discussing on this video. Enjoy:





         
 

Once this thread reaches 100 pages, I'm out. 

We were blessed to be able to attend his conferences whenever possible. We listened to this yesterday. There is another video on Papal Infallibility which is highly recommended and covers what we have been discussing on this video. Enjoy:

      
 

I only heard of him off and on and *wrongly*, did not think much of Fr. Hesse until just recently - I changed my tune quick after I actually listened to his talks. I have downloaded them all and listened to most of the ones posted here.

Well worth the time for every trad to pay attention and listen to this priest's clear thinking and irrefutable explanations on many issues regarding this crisis. 

Ma'am, there's nothing wrong with the source I provided.  

However, there is definitely something wrong with a quote you provided on this thread...

There is no such person as Bishop Brizen...he does not exist

If this quote is true, where is the letter?

Actually,  Fr. Hesse has the exact quote with the source (and much more) on the video on Papal Infallibility I posted today. I just posted the first I found online to save time. 

A more reason for despair is to think that a legitimate successor of St. Peter could authorize an invalid or sacrilegious Mass worldwide without the gates of Hell having prevailed against us. And we know, infallibly, that that is impossible.

Guarding the Sacred Liturgy is part of the duty of the Church. Pope Pius XI made it clear in his Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus:

A child can see that if the conciliar popes are true popes, then the Holy See has indeed "received and approved" the Novus Ordo rite given that the Popes themselves along with the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy and millions of Catholics throughout the world have been saying it publicly for decades. If the Church, in promulgating the NOM has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship, then the Church has defected from an essential part of her mission.

So instead of entertaining the possibility of an actual crypto - Jєω infiltrating the Seat of Peter (directly proportional to the raising socio-economic Judaic power over the globe), which would explain every.single.thing. and more, you stubbornly cling to the fact that the Pope has defected, the Magisterium has defected, the Liturgy has defected. Basically, in your position, the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.  

If Paul VI was indeed pope, you have a defected Church.

Cantarella,

You just don't get it. It is you that belong to a church that has no pope, no Magisterium, no rule of faith and has no intent or means to ever get them. You are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church outside of which there is neither forgiveness of sins or the possibility of salvation. You shouldn't worry about anyone but yourself. Pope Pius XI, Divini Cultus, only proves that the conciliar popes have failed in their duty. That is there problem.  Our problem is how to keep the faith and the proper worship of God in spite of the failing of the conciliar popes.
 
As I have previously said, the Indefectibility of the Church pertains primarily to the worship of God and the sanctification of souls.  The proof that the Church is Indefectible is that Catholics faithful to dogma and the "received and approved" rites of the sacraments have never been absent from the Church despite the constant contumely of the conciliar popes.  
 
It is impossible that the "received and approved" rites are the Novus Ordo.  It is impossible because anything "received" comes from someone before us as St. Paul says, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread" (1 Cor.11:23). Divine worship has from the beginning been "received" and handed on.  If you ever read Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year one of the most striking facts is that Rome has had very, very little to do with the development with the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. Typically a local tradition is established and spreads and, what may be hundreds of years later, Rome acknowledges the tradition and offers it to the universal Church. The liturgy is the work of the Holy Ghost, not the work of man. 
 
It matters not one iota if Rome defects as long as you remain faithful. The great apostasy has been prophesied and Cardinal Manning said that every Church Father who wrote on the subject says Rome will fall from the faith although he did not specifically identify the hierarchy as responsible.  The mystics also speak of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, undergoing a passion analogous to what our Head suffered. Why should the Passion of the Church scandalize you: "Christ crucified, unto the Jєωs indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23)?  St. John of the Cross speaks of the annihilation of Jesus Christ in His Passion: Annihilated in His person because physically destroyed, annihilated in His reputation because He was held in contempt by all, annihilated in His soul because He was abandoned by His Father. The Church will suffer an analogous annihilation and those who are scandalized by her in her Passion will walk away. 
 
We have the promise of the Blessed Virgin at Fatima, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted...." Those who share in the Passion of the Church will rise gloriously with her. Those that walk away will not.
 
Drew